It is this imprudent misinformation and the lack of knowledge that made us negligent to the dangers we have been cursed with for decades and which continues to grow and will destroy the foundations of democracy, freedom, even honor and integrity. It has cost many innocent lives and continues to endanger more!!
Before the black revolution, Iran was not a threat to the international community or indeed its own people as some keep falsely promoting. The only people at the time who should have feared were the communists and the Islamists - exactly as the communists and Islamists live in fear from the western democracies today. Or perhaps the biggest fear of all was that before the revolution, Iran was becoming another Japan ...
Nicole.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
....The late Shah of Iran ' s Vision...
|
|
|
A recent
trip to the United Kingdom provided me the opportunity to pay a visit to the
British National Archive in Kew . Reading pages and pages and taking notes
on various topics of interest made me decide to use some of the collected
information and write the following piece.
One of the most under-studied and under-researched international
personalities of the twentieth century has to be the late Shah of Iran,
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
The Islamic revolution of 1979, its causes, roots, pros & cons as well as
its outcomes have been covered in numerous books and articles. The event has
been discussed and to some extent analysed in various seminars, conferences,
speeches and lectures regarding its historical, sociological or political
contexts throughout the world for the past twenty-five years. Despite all
this, very little has been given to study, explore and to understand the
very man who for thirty-seven years led his nation in peace and harmony with
the international community towards a steady and at times a rapid social and
economical progress which guaranteed tranquillity "in one of the most
troubled regions of this world". With the exception of a few books, the
world scholars, journalists as well as its academic institutions have
conveniently forgotten for various political reasons - usually driven by
economical motives of their respected governments, the very person who was
responsible for peace in the Middle East .
The modern
world sometimes moves forward with such velocity that in order to find the
remedies to a range of today ' s world issues, it should pause and search
the solutions in the not so distant past.
I am not a scholar, nor have any claim to be a historian or a politician. I
am simply a curious Iranian to whom the world ' deafening silence seems
perplexing. Looking back at the events of the past quarter of a century, I
would like to make an attempt and review certain aspects of my country ' s
last monarch ' s ambitions and his global forethoughts. Aspirations that
though may have appeared - as some Europeans claimed at the time as "Folly
de Grandeur", but the passing of years have given their seal of approval to
his hopes and fears.
Some may immediately ask me whether I would cover reasons for his failure
too. My answer to them is; "No!" There have been so much unfinished
debates and discussions worldwide on his fall that have only resulted in
confusing the public. I believe it is time for the world to wake up and
learn from his vision, achievements and his dreams; not only for Iran but
for a world that had he survived, more than a million innocent men and
women would have not perished from Kabul to New York.
My intention here is to remind the readers - Iranian or non-, of who he was
and whom the world lost. I particularly would like to address the Americans
who have been under attack since the advent of the Islamic Republic in Iran
more than any other Western nation on this planet.
What did Mohammad Reza Pahlavi dream for Iran , the Middle East and the
World? Let ' s review his most feasible plans that by now could have made
our country part of what would have become the G9 group. Michael Heseltine a
junior minister in the department of aerospace and industry at the time who
later became Margaret Thatcher ' s deputy Prime Minister (1995-1997) visited
the Shah in May 1972. In his recent autobiography, "Life In The Jungle"�
published in 2000 he wrote; "The two big opportunities of my trip were
thought to be Tehran and Singapore . It was understood that the Shah of Iran
had a vision of Tehran as a staging post between West and East. He saw
Concorde as an important part of the process, if Tehran was seen as a major
stopover on its journey both ways. Our strategy was to fly him in the
aircraft and hopefully get him to confirm his options to buy. We also needed
his agreement to overflying rights. Much of Iran is open desert where the
footprint of the sound barrier would have little or no impact."
|
|
The former
British Deputy PM carries on; "I was to meet the Shah in the Imperial
Pavilion at Tehran airport for a brief introduction to the project, aided by
various demonstrator boards, before he joined me for a flight. One of the
demonstrator boards set up to be shown to the Shah consisted of a huge map
of the world on which capital cities, principle airports and major flying
routes were indicated in large, unmissable topography. About ten minutes
before the Shah was due someone helpfully pointed out that there was no
reference to Tehran on the map. The offending demonstrator board was removed
from sight. Crisis averted. The Shah duly arrived. After a quick briefing we
set off along the red carpet across the tarmac to the aircraft itself.
During the flight it would be up to me to secure our sales and overflying
objectives.
The take-off was uneventful and we sped heavenwards to the 58,000 feet at
which the aircraft is most efficient. However, I had no sooner concluded the
initial pleasantries than the Shah, an experienced pilot himself, asked if
he could join the test pilot, Brian Trubshaw, in the cockpit. In a second he
was gone. I was in despair. There was no other time during our stopover when
I could conduct a sales pitch or secure agreements before we were due to
leave Tehran . But the Shah did not return until we came in to land.
Down the steps we went, heading for the Imperial Pavilion. There were about
200 yards of red carpet between us and the waiting press corps. I had 200
yards in which to obtain " or not " the objective clearly set for me. I
decided to go for it. "Your Majesty, I hope you enjoyed the flight. I would
like to ask you if you would consider purchasing the aircraft?" "Yes," he
replied. "I would like two." So far, so good. "Your Majesty, we would be
grateful for overflying rights across Iran on our journey to and from the
Far East ." - "That would be quite acceptable," he said.
But the problem was that no one else had heard our conversation. My
officials were some way behind me. I had been alone with the occupant of the
Peacock Throne. By now we had reached the assembled press corps. The first
journalists in the queue were Iranians. The level of questioning focused on
such trivia as whether His Majesty had enjoyed the flight, the comfort of
the plane and so on. Then a loud voice from somewhere to the rear of the
crowd of journalists called out, "The Times, London , Your Majesty. Are you
going to buy the aircraft?" "Yes," said the Shah. "Two." Another British
voice: "The BBC, London , Your Majesty. Will you give us overflying
rights?"-"Yes, I will."
The Shah must obviously have studied and consulted the proposal with his
advisors and experts in the field prior to his meeting with the British
minister. Considering the immense revenue generated from overlying rights to
Concorde together with our national carrier as the only airline flying
Concorde aircrafts - after British Airways and Air France, and the only
airline in the world to offer supersonic travels between the European
business centres to those of Australia and the Far East, Iran Air Concorde
would have dominated most international business flights between the West
and the Orient.
Bearing in mind Heseltine ' s autobiography was published many years after
the collapse of our Imperial government, he writes; "In October 1972 Iran
Air signed a preliminary agreement to purchase two Concordes for delivery in
late 1976 or early 1977 with an option on a third. Six and a half years
later the Shah was deposed and for at least two years before that he came
under increasing anti-modernisation political pressure."�
Concorde never again succeeded in attracting a foreign investors in which
its high costs of maintenance was a continuous issue until the crash in
Paris on July25, 2000 brought its thirty year life to an end.
Our economical progress coupled with
social changes proved to be too rapid for us Iranians to comprehend and
appreciate. As Iran progressed industrially through the 70s
like every other nation in the world the sudden change of pace brought with
it various but expected deficiencies and shortages; nothing that time and
hard work could have not over come. In other words, they were teething
problems of any rapidly advancing nation.
However, higher standard of living resulted
in higher expectations among Iranians. The consequence was a society with
raised expectations but no patience for their government to materialize
their demands.
By this time Europeans were getting itchy on Iran ' s arm spending and its
armament budget - 26% of the total annual budget. Accusations were thrown
and suspicions rose by the Western media. A Number of these countries were
the very ones that Iran ' s arms deals kept many of their citizens employed
and therefore, helped their economy.
A reporter from the German magazine, Der Spiegel who interviewed the late
Majesty on January 1974 questioned HIM regarding Iran ' s arms spending.
"Why are you spending so much money on armaments? Where is the enemy?"
The Shah replied; "Well, this is the same question as why Germany or France
are spending so much money on armaments?"
The Shah: Because they have some
neighbours in the East whose intentions were not always quite clear.
Der Spiegel: Are they going to attack you?
The Shah: We hope not.
Der Spiegel: So why are you spending the money?
The Shah: I am spending the money for exactly the same reason. I take no
chances whatsoever. I have friends, I try to even have more friends, but we
cannot only depend on our alliances. Sometimes we could be let down. Another
thing: do you all agree that the October war with Israel was a surprise?
Consider the amount of weapons and the sophisticated weapons that were used
against Israel - did you or did even the Israelis expect anything like this?
Everyone was surprised. So I take absolutely no chances. I must not depend
on anyone but ourselves.
When Der Spiegel asked the Shah whether Iran can keep up with such growth -
20% annually, and reminded His Imperial Majesty that it took the Western
countries generations to reach the present level and whether he thinks he
can overlap this? The Shah responded, "Yes, our people are hard working and
they have a craze for learning. We have all the incentives. We have our
own traditions; we have a very old history - 3000 years. Why should
we copy others?
Der Spiegel: And Western technology?
To this the Shah replied; "You have spent millions of dollars in research "
after many years of hard work you have discovered things. Why shouldn ' t we
take it? But we take all these things and we keep what is good. And we can
develop ideas also. All these isms "capitalism, socialism, communism, or
anything else - are so old now that they do not correspond to the ideals of
the human being. It doesn ' t correspond to the breakthrough in technology,
it doesn ' t correspond to our times."
By now our economy had become strong enough to reverse our trade patterns
with that of Western Europe . The Times on January 26, 1974 reported; "Total
Iranian exports to Britain last year were valued at about 128 m while
British exports and re-exports to Iran came to approximately 116m."
We had reached a position of strength
from a borrower - years earlier, to a major world lender,
including to those among the elite of nations. Mr. Healy, Chancellor of
the Exchequer in a speech addressing the British parliament on July 22, 1974
thanked the Imperial Iranian government for providing Britain with a line of
credit of $1,200m.
"I have not had to draw on the $2,500m
loan, which was negotiated at the time of the Budget. And I am now able to
tell the House of another welcome source of funds for public sectors
borrowers."
He continued, "The Imperial Iranian Government has offered to provide the
United Kingdom with a line of credit of $1,200m, to be drawn on in the form
of three separate loans by public sector bodies within three years from
now."
We have reached agreement on this offer, and I hope that arrangements for
the first loan will be made in the very near future. I know that the
willingness of the Iranian Government to enter into an arrangement of this
kind reflects the concern of His Imperial Majesty the Shah of Iran over the
difficulties facing the world economy and his constructive attitudes to the
problems at present facing the international monetary system, and I believe
that the House will join me in welcoming this development."
Iran ' s loan to Britain helped the British government to reduce their VAT
rate from 10% at the time to 8% - with immediate effect. On the following
day The Times carried the following headline;
"Chancellor cuts VAT, aid ratepayers, eases
dividend limits and accepts Iran loan."
In the same year, the Shah spoke of creating a new grouping of Indian Ocean
countries on the basis of economic, political and eventually naval
cooperation, to "secure our shipping lanes" and keep "non-regional powers
out."
When Iran ' s GNP (Gross National Product) rose by 40% towards the end of
1974 and when we bought over 25% of steel-making subsidiary of the Krupp
group from its German owners - an agreement which could set the pattern for
investment of Middle Eastern countries in Western Europe , the European
Union was still considered at its infancy. The Shah, aware of the
economical centers of power in the United States and the then European
Economic Community, had come to conclude a plan of his own. A project
that could help to counter balance the Western economical might with that of
the fast Asian developing countries,- the Indian Ocean Economic Union or
Common Market.
Michael Hornsby a journalist from the Times newspaper reported from Delhi on
October 3, 1974 on the Shah ' s next regional vision. "The Shah envisaged
the membership of his proposed organization being restricted initially to
the "northern tier-of the Indian Ocean" Iran, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh,
Burma, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore " but eventually extending to Indo
China, Australia and even African countries."
Hornsby iterates that for the Indians to embrace the Shah ' s scheme
enthusiastically now, would be a considerable rebuff to the Soviet Union and
an indication of the political price the Indians are prepared to pay for
concessionary supplies of oil and other economic aid from Iran .
In the same month, the Shah and the Empress paid an official visit to
Australia . The Australian papers as well as those elsewhere printed that
Iran was likely either to lend money directly to Australian Industry
Development Corporation or become jointly involved with the government in
Australian projects.
But among all these, did the world
appreciate his vision? Does the West ever want peace in the
only region that can afford paying astronomical figures for the latest
weapons and military technology?
If the Arab nations and their leaders - particularly those in the Persian
Gulf region, had the wisdom, they would have seen the prosperity and lasting
peace that such fundamental plans could bring to our region and would have
supported our government wholeheartedly.
The Shah
had said that his plan would help to create a positive and co-operative
world partnership, which could usher in a decade of genuine development to
equalise today ' s disparities between rich and poor nations and harmonise
their contradictions, which are the main source of animosities, conflicts
and wars.
As for the Iranian generation
at the time, there were those who fully supported the regime ' s policies
and witnessed the improvements made in all walks of life.
But there were also those groups
of Iranians, in particular the students who received government scholarship,
including a 90% discount on their return airfare, the cost of their living
expenses together with their university fees while they attended
universities in capitalist countries.
Some of them
joined the Iranian Student Confederation - a communist/socialist group, and
did not miss a chance to demonstrate every time an Iranian official or the
Shah paid a visit to a foreign country.
These students who were spoiled by the
Imperial government ' s financial support believed that it was their right
to live comfortably as students abroad - a student life enviable by other
students, and their political prerogative to shout death to their sovereign.
It is ironic that hardly any of our left wing activists had ever lived,
studied or even visited any of the communist block!
Such a trend had seemed bizarre enough that a European newspaper wrote; "Few
people, even among young Iranians, appreciate the extent and scope of the
changes,
mainly because most of them have
now come to take them for granted."
As the Shah ' s fame and Iran ' s fortune became center stage by the
mid-seventies, so did European
animosity towards him and our regime.
Human Rights
groups that have chosen to be silent in the past two and a half decades of
the Islamic Republic ' s genocide, either for their respective governments '
foreign policy such as "Constructive Engagements" or trade opportunities,
would had not missed a chance to demonstrate their anger against the Shah or
our officials in every possible way.
This is at a time when in June 1974 Iran with its US$5.4 billion had come
to occupy the 13th place among the 20 richest countries of the world. Two
years later Iran ' s income from exports reached the US$15 billion whereas
its imports were only in region of US$13 billion, with 52% intermediate
goods, 30% machinery and 18% consumer goods.
The man who the
Western media had portrayed as a
dictator,
told in an interview in 1976 to the famous Indian journalist and writer R.
K. Karanjia, "If ever I felt that Persia ' s monarchy had outlived its
usefulness, I would be happy to resign and would even join in helping to
abolish our monarchical institution."
Margaret Laing, in her book titled, "The Shah" wrote,
"The Shah
believes discipline without democracy is authoritarianism, and that
democracy without discipline is anarchy."
Ironically,
for at least the past thirty
years the European press more than any Iranian opposition have been accusing
HIM of not being democratic. He was called an autocrat at the best times and
the "blood sucker of the century" at its worst!
No one took the pain to
understand the Shah ' s reasons or his long desire for establishing
democracy, a seed that was sewn in his mind from his adolescent years in
Switzerland .
Time after
time the Shah repeated that his concept of democracy springs from the fact
that today ' s common man has steadily been losing his grip over his
economic activities. "So he is fully justified in demanding, together
with his political rights, guarantees for his economic rights as well.
To a man in dire economic want," he said, "political freedom is utterly
meaningless. The first and foremost duty, therefore, of any government is
to usher in democracy "political, economic and social" for the benefit of
the common man. Ever since my return from Switzerland " he continued, "I
had been evolving my philosophy that every man, woman, and child in my
country" or, for that matter, in any country of the world " is entitled to a
decent minimum of the five necessaries of life: food, clothing, housing,
medical care and education.
These I consider to be the five imperative tenets of social justice.
Further, I believe a man ' s minimum income must be at such a level as would
enable him to secure these five fundamentals for himself and his family."
Economic and social
democracies were the first two steps of his bigger plan that he managed to
create and nurture successfully.
By the late 70s one could not
find a hungry Iranian where only two decades earlier even our capital hardly
had access to clean water or any sanitations.
By introducing free meals six days a week throughout the academic year to
every schoolchild whether from a poor or rich background Iranian children
were fed the same nutritious food for free, on daily basis!
Economic democracy had created a large middle class that is the backbone of
every healthy society. Iranians where free to engage in any field of
business and commerce, many who received government subsidies or long term
loans with one of
the lowest interest rates in the world.
We were free to
travel and were respected in all countries we visited. Social freedoms had
allowed Iranians to flourish and hence, create one of the most vibrant and
avant-garde societies of the Sixties and the Seventies.
Having enjoyed the above, our
people demanded for political democracy that the Shah wished to see fully
established before passing the throne to his son. However, the social and
economic democracies enjoyed in Iran of pre-Islamic revolution
were the results of nearly two decades of hard work.
When people demanded to have political democracy, certain initiatives had
already taken place by the government on that path
but Iranians
wanted it not tomorrow but yesterday!
Asking any Iranian today would agree that to reach political democracy we
did not have to uproot our entire existence and had we been wiser and less
manipulated, by now we would have been a prosperous nation with a powerful
industry to match those in the Western world. With a difference that we
would have created indigenous democratic institutions to meet our specific
needs and desires, to match our tradition, culture and history and not
simply by copying them from the West.
In the meantime the European media began pounding the regime with baseless
accusations against SAVAK " Iran ' s answer to every other nation ' s
intelligence organization."
Once the Islamic Republic
triumphed,
most of those who were claimed
to be executed or tortured by SAVAK, walked healthy out of the prison
and took various offices in the newly formed Islamic regime.
With full access
to billions of dollars left in Iran ' s coffers these individuals succeeded
in knitting a network of terror which introduced the world to a new concept
of Islamic fanaticism pursued by an international terrorism with wider and
more horrific dimensions than ever before.
Those who were once cheered as freedom fighters by the West and its human
rights organizations, have today come to threaten the life of every man,
woman and child in Western civilization.
Even at such critical point the European Union still flirts
with a mafia-like regime
only to gain further lucrative deals.
Two and half
decades earlier the West with its powerful propaganda machine had unleashed
their venom towards our Imperial government and
accused us for our lack of respect for human
rights in order to protect the very individuals who are today
threatening the security of all European and mostly American citizens and
their way of life.
SAVAK portrayed as one of the
most notorious organizations by Western media, its very own boss
Mr. Hossein Fardoust who had grown up with the Shah and was sent to
Switzerland with him to study, turned out to be a collaborator with the
revolutionaries for many years!
|
|
Massoud
Rajavi, leader of the People ' s Mojahedin Organization whose group has been
listed by the US Congress as a terrorist organization and a collaborator
with Ayatollah Khomeini was one of the prisoners
twenty six years ago who walked out of a SAVAK prison with a clear bill of
health.
However, after his escape from the Islamic Republic ' s tyranny which
himself played an active role in its creation; in an interview in Paris soon
after his arrival on August 7th, 1981 said to reporters, "Khomeini
is worst than Hitler and the Shah was nothing but a choir boy."
When our so called
intellectuals began condemning every move the regime made, irrespective of
its nature and reason it reminded me of Henry Kissinger ' s comment;
"Intellectuals condemn
society for materialism when it is prosperous and for injustice when it is
to ensure prosperity."
Once all political factions were pushed aside by the Islamic regime, they
began accusing each other and that the revolution was stolen from them! I
always wondered how could those self-appointed intellectuals who admitted
losing to a bunch of theologians ever succeed in running the country?
We always tend to think of historical tragedy as failing to get what we
want, but if we study history we find that the worst tragedies have occurred
when people got what they wanted
- and it turned out to be the wrong objectives.
In the midst of havoc and
chaos created by the revolutionaries,
our so-called allies never came
to our aid; instead a member of Carter ' s administration credited the
Ayatollah with sainthood. Ten months later Khomeini awarded the Americans by
taking their diplomats hostage for 444 days.
Years later Henry Kissinger
wrote; "The United States must show that it is capable of rewarding a
friend or penalizing an opponent. It must be made clear, after too long an
interval that our allies benefit from association with us and our enemies
suffer. It is a simpleminded proposition perhaps,
but for a great power it is the
prerequisite, indeed the definition, of an effective foreign policy."
In another
reference to Iran and the consequence of the fall of the Shah he wrote; "Iran,
Pakistan and Afghanistan are pivotal to the world ' s security. Within few
years of my 1973 journey to Tehran , it became an area of upheaval. From the
Iranian revolution to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to the Iran-Iraq
war, events dramatized the vulnerability of the Persian Gulf - the lifeline
of the West ' s oil supply."
The Shah in his last book,
"Answer to History" which he began and completed in exile wrote, "The
benefits of so many years of effort are now reduced to nothing."
"Our assemblage of a formidable military force in the Middle East has
resulted in charges of megalomania and of careless spending of Iran ' s
money on arms while my people are deprived of basics need. The question of
the adequacy of our military force is subjective. To my knowledge, no
military leader of world stature has criticized my arms policy as excessive.
As for robbing the Iranian people of their living essentials in order to pay
for armaments, nothing could be further from the truth.
After paying
for these armaments, Iran had a reserve of $12 billion in foreign currency."
Today not only such reserve
of foreign assets do not exist but according to the Deputy Governor of
Central Bank of Iran (CBI) for Economic Affairs Akbar Kimjani, "Iran ' s
foreign debt, excluding interests due,
stands at USD
23.438 billion
by the end of the Iranian month of Dey (December 22, 2003 - January 20,
2004)."
Michael Ledeen in his book titled - Debacle: The American failure in Iran ,
says; "Accordingly, Mohammad Reza became passionately committed to the view
that he must not take action that would produce large-scale bloodshed in his
last days. He desired to be remembered as a benevolent monarch, not a
ruthless dictator. As he told friends repeatedly in the final months of his
rule, he wished to leave Iran not only with an advanced industrial base and
military organization but with a modern political system as well. And he
wanted to pass on to his son a country with genuine affection for the
Pahlavi family. Could this be achieved if the revolution were smashed by the
application of what he called "the iron fist"? The shah did not think so.
Months after the debacle, he wrote:
|
|
"I am told today that I should have applied martial law more forcefully.
This would have cost my country less dear that the bloody anarchy now
established there.
But a sovereign cannot save his throne by
spilling the blood of his fellow countrymen. A dictator can do it because he
acts in the name of an ideology, which he believes he must make triumphant,
no matter what the price.
A sovereign is not a dictator.
There is between him and his people an alliance, which he cannot break.
A dictator has nothing to pass on: power belongs to him and him
alone. A
sovereign receives a crown. I could envisage my son mounting the throne in
my own lifetime".
Ledeen continues, "The last sentence is the operative one-the shah knew he
was dying, and that the way in which the Iranian crisis was resolved would
determine the destiny of his heir."
While in exile Carter turned his back on the Shah and did not want to have
anything to do with the leader who when celebrating New Year ' s Eve 1978 at
his home -
Niavaran Palace in Tehran, he addressed the Shah by; "Our
talks have been priceless, our friendship is irreplaceable, and my own
gratitude is to the Shah, who in his wisdom and with his experience has been
so helpful to me, a new leader."�
Steven Hayward in his book
published in 2004 under the title, "The Real Jimmy Carter"� writes; "Carter
betrayed a man whose fall to the Ayatollah Khomeini on Carter ' s watch
spawned the resurgence of fundamentalist Islamist terrorism that is now the
War on Terror.
Two months after the Shah ' s
death in Egypt, Iran ' s brave armed forces who were trained as first class
troops with the best armaments but without their top generals who had all
been executed in the previous twenty months, were the key factors in
stopping Saddam Hussein invading our country in an eight year war with Iraq.
Had the Shah of Iran remained in power, the Iran-Iraq war would not have
occurred. By 1975, Iran ' s superior military and economic power, supported
diplomatically by her good neighbour policy that promised peace and progress
for all, had drawn Saddam Hussein to a politics of mutual respect and
friendly interaction. The Algiers Agreement of 1975 and Saddam ' s expulsion
of Khomeini from Iraq in 1978 attest to the efficiency of Iranian power and
diplomacy. Had the war not occurred, a million Iranians and Iraqis would
have not died in vain and several million would not have been forced from
home and family.
Moreover, Iran ' s national
power and international prestige, and her interest in the Persian Gulf,
would have made it impossible for Saddam to invade Kuwait .
With the fall of the Soviet system, Iran , boasting the most advanced
economy, technology and military in the region,
would be the hub of peaceful and
profitable diplomatic, cultural, economic and commercial relations in
Central Asia and the Middle East.
Iran ' s power and her friendly and rational relations with the West would
have made the presence of American troops and weapons in the Persian Gulf
region redundant and consequently anti-American feeling would not have
been excited by the likes of Khomeini or Khamanei or Osama Bin Laden.
Islamist
movements and organizations would not have the Islamic Republic as a model
for emulation or support for expansion.
A powerful, secular, and
peaceful Iran - non-Arab and non - Jewish - would be a pillar on which both
Israel and the Arab world could lean for balance and security as they and
the world strived for peace in justice and dignity.
Henry Kissinger in Years of
Upheaval in relation to the Shah and his fall wrote; "What overthrew the
Shah was a coalition of legitimate grievances and an inchoate accumulation
of resentment aimed at the very concept of modernity and at the Shah ' s
role as a moderate world leader.
The Shah was despised less for
what he did wrong than for what he did right.
He was brought down by those who
hated reform and the West; who were against absolute rule only if it was
based on secular principles.
The immediate victors were not enlightened
dissidents of liberal democratic persuasion but the most regressive group in
Iranian society:
the religious ayatollahs who
identified human dignity not with freedom and progress but with an ancient
moral and religious code."�
Today the Shah of Iran and
Ayatollah Khomeini are both gone. While Khomeini left a prosperous country
in ruins and damaged Islam more than any one else since its advent,
the Shah ' s legacy lives on to this day in the hearts and minds of every
Iranian.
Our youth today
realising the catastrophic mistake that their parents made are eager more
than ever before to learn about the truth. As Princess Ashraf called her
book, it is "Time for Truth"�.
The new generation who has
escalated their pro democratic and secularist demand in recent years have
so far received no international
support while paying the heaviest price.
They would only need to go
through the pages of their family albums and see their parents during their
teenage years or when they dated each other to begin questioning them about
the country we had during the reign of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi.
Many of them blaming the older generation for today ' s ills are determined
to put an end to this absurdity ruling our ancient land in the 21st century.
All they expect from the
international community
is to stick by them and to stop
cutting deals with the religious apartheid that is bringing our nation to a
complete annihilation.
If some of those in the older
generation agreed with Ayatollah Khomeini and brought a system of government
that they deserved,
the new generation obviously
deserves better and will demolish the system whether the European Union
decides to be with us or with the terrorists.
|
|
Some of us
may have lost hope, but in addressing his nation for the last time, the Shah
in "Answer to History" wrote; "The lesson of the wickedness and immorality
of international power-politics was burnt "yes, very literally burnt" into
my mind and heart. The main lesson I learnt was that when you are weak you
have got to be very patient. You have got to accept humiliation. You have
got to take the worst kind of insults.
But in your
inner heart you have got to love your country, have faith in its people and
believe in their destiny as well as yours. If you do so, there is always a
little ray of hope left which kindles in your conscience and inspires you to
make the best of the worst possible circumstances and save whatever little
you can of your land and its inheritance. That is the key to human survival
amidst overwhelming difficulties."
Ardavan Bahrami - An Iranian
political activist, a pro-democracy campaigner and a freelance journalist.